ThePirateBay has links to content hosted elsewhere that’s available for download using the BitTorrent protocol. The site also provides a search engine for finding that content, and a page for each torrent with information about the content. It doesn’t distinguish between content that’s protected by copyright and content that isn’t. The four founders of ThePirateBay were convicted by a Swedish court last week. They were fined a middling amount, and were sentenced to a year in jail. (“What’re you in for?” “Improper use of metadata.”)

Now there is ThePirateGoogle, created by someone to make a point. There you can use the Google search engine to search for content hosted elsewhere, available for download using the BitTorrent protocol. It doesn’t distinguish between content that’s protected by copyright and content that isn’t.

Here’s the text from ThePirateGoogle site:

Bit Torrent Search

Please Note: This site is not affiliated with Google, it simply makes use of Google Custom Search to restrict your searches to Torrent files. You can do this with any regular Google search by appending your query with filetype:torrent. This technique can be used for any type of file supported by Google.

The intention of this site is to demonstrate the double standard that was exemplified in the recent Pirate Bay Trial. Sites such as Google offer much the same functionality as The Pirate Bay and other Bit Torrent sites but are not targeted by media conglomerates such as the IFPI as they have the political and legal clout to defend themselves unlike these small independent sites.

This site is created in support of an open, neutral internet accessible and equitable to all regardless of political or financial standing.

Cheers!

Yes, you can do with Google what you do with ThePirateBay. For example, do the following search at Google:

There’s obviously a difference in intent between ThePirateBay and Google. But there is precious little relevant difference in the service. So, why jail the founders of ThePirateBay but not the founders of Google since either can be used to find copyright-protected torrents? Having the wrong mental attitude? (“What are you in for?” “Intent to improperly use metadata.”)

What to make of this? I find myself in a jumble:

1. I don’t think it’s a double standard. Intent counts. The difference between the Heimlich maneuver and assault is intent, and that’s as it should be. ThePirateBay is intended to enable the sharing of copyrighted works: TPB has facilities designed to help you locate, evaluate, and share files, including a page for each torrent with comments, ratings, descriptions, and the number of seeders and leechers (to see how alive the torrent is). And it’s named The freaking Pirate Bay. There may or may not be a law in Sweden against what TPB does, but it’s disingenuous to say that the site is ethically the same as Google.

3. ThePirateGoogle shows that shutting down ThePirateBay is not going to stop the use of BitTorrent to share copyrighted files. But jailing TPB’s founders may slow sharing down. Torrent site after torrent site has been shut down over the past few years, making it harder to find and download files now. The verdict in TPB case, especially with its jail sentence, will slow down the torrent of torrents, although perhaps not by much.

4. Just in case someone tells you otherwise: The BitTorrent protocol is not the issue here. It’s a brilliant way of sharing large files, and it’s used all over the place for perfectly legal file-sharing.

5. I don’t know what to do about copyright. It’s obviously spun out of control and needs to be pulled back in — lasting 70 years after the death of the creator is absurd — but we need to do far more than just shorten its term. Compensating creators for every use of their works obviously contradicts the maximal open sharing and reuse of works that drives culture forward. Creating a legal and economic environment with incentives for creators does not contradict the open sharing and reuse of works. The question is: Which legal/economic environment would work best? I don’t know — I wish I did — but I suspect it’s one in which copyrighting a work takes a little bit of effort, not all categories of work have the same copyright protections, the terms are way way way shorter than they are now, fair use is greatly extended, infringement only counts if it actually hurts sales (in the way that most mashups do not), compensation does not come from accounting for each and every use of a work, and we start rewarding those who release their works into the public domain by showering them with affection, cultural uptake, and some money.

5 Responses to “The Pirate Bay and The Pirate Google”

Intent does count, but it would be a curious legal system where two hypothetical identical websites could result in two different verdicts for their owners based on the “intent” of those owners.

Also hypothetically, imagine if the site had been called “The Don’t Infringe Copyright Bay” and had contained messages politely asking people to not infringe copyright. Imagine further that the owners had replied to the legal letters they received saying “We’d love to help, but unless you can prove that you are the copyright holder and that the people using our service do not have permission to access your copyrighted work, then it would be unethical of us to interfere with their connections.”

Under these circumstances, the amount of infringement would presumably remain the same, but I don’t know if the prosecution could prove “intent”. The laws would effectively become prohibitions against using the word “pirate” in a domain name and against writing rude replies to lawyers.

Name Required – It would indeed be curious if the two sites were identical, since in the actual case, the intent is expressed in the differences in the sites. Intent counts, but it doesn’t count for everything, and it is worrisome to count it at all.

I forget which modern British philosopher wondered why a husband who jabs a pitchfork under a bed in the false belief that his wife’s lover is there isn’t tried for attempted murder. In the US, the debate over hate crimes legislation is over the significance of mental contents. And, finally, Richard Dooley’s “Brainstorm” (did I get that wrong?) is a very entertaining novel about this question, as I recall.

“ThePirateBay has links to content hosted elsewhere thatâ€™s available for download using the BitTorrent protocol”

should indeed be (NOT to justify the abuse of copyright by corporations, just to provide a bit more of context):

“”ThePirateBay has links to content hosted elsewhere that was made available for download by third parties, against the wishes of the copyright holders, using the BitTorrent protocol”

I agree that the main problem with copyright is its duration (almost the only one, IMO, as the others would almost disappear if its duration and nothing else didn’t give corporation the time to pile enough money to enforce, or get away with, the other abuses), followed by too many restrictions on fair use.

I’d just like to add that the 4 TPB horsemen are of the opinion that intellectual property piracy is not, or should not, be a crime (in the legal-formal sense). Regardless of how Swedish copyright law works. Copyright abolishment extremists, if you will (try googling “kopimi” or “pyratbran” for those looking for more). Yes, they’re against copyright, but its more than just simply wanting “products” for “free/gratis.”

Or so The Pirate Bay operators frame it.

And all this time I’ve been under the impression that somehow copyright law as implemented in Sweden is somehow different than its application in the US and other countries. Could it be that it’s not so different after all?

Be careful. What was your intent in posting the link to Google search results for The Dark Knight? Warner Brothers could argue you intentionally aided with the copyright infringement of their movie. Poof, you’re in jail.

Notice how intent only matters when it favors the MPAA/RIAA? Consider that “fair use” in the USA means I can copy a DVD for personal use. However the DMCA states I cannot decrypt a DVD even if it is only to make a fair use copy. What about intent? Shouldn’t it be legal for me to decrypt a DVD if I intent to only make fair use of my copy? Shouldn’t it be illegal to decrypt a DVD only if I intent to violate copyright law?

“TPB has facilities designed to help you locate, evaluate…” none of that reveals any intent. Like the BitTorrent protocol itself, these are all good features you’d expect to find in a good file-sharing service. Only the name, “Pirate Bay” and their snarky legal replies reveal TPB intent. If TPB was “The Public-Domain Bay” and they simply ignored take-down requests, they might have avoided jail.

Your Heimlich example insightfully illustrates how intent matters, but it is not a good analogy to this case. A better example is if Smith & Wesson sold a gun called “The Wife Muzzle” instead of their more generic names like “The Sigma”. While the Wife Muzzle would be an offensive name for a gun, S&W has a “free-speech” right to name their product anything they want. IMHO, the judge should have ruled that while the name “Pirate Bay” reveals an intent to aid with copyright infringement, there is technically nothing illegal about TPB service and “free-speech” trumps any objections plaintiffs have about the name “Pirate Bay”.

Finally, the important technical distinction between TPB and The Pirate Google, is that TPB is an announcer while TPG is not. You could not create a new torrent using TPG search engine. You would have to find another site willing to host your .torrent file and then wait for TPG to add your torrent to the index. So it is in fact, very important that services like TPB be allowed to continue. TPG is not a substitute.